tv [untitled] April 30, 2012 4:00pm-4:30pm PDT
urge you to support the historic preservation position on all items. for example, i will just call out one item. why, i ask you, should the planning department be required to conduct a written vote of owners and occupants in a proposed historic district, or i conservation district? why iswhat are historic district singled out? why not a survey of all the efforts of the planning department? that would be equitable and burdensome. but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, is it not? i would urge you to resort to the historic preservation commission if wording -- preservation commission have
wording -- commission's wor ding. lead the flexibility to the planning department to decide how to get public input to take the temperature of the residents and arguments, so to speak. i also urge you to give heed to commissioner martinez's remarks about the economic hardship item, rather than using a one- size-fits, all. chairperson mar: the chart you gave us -- where did this come from? who supports this tax >> -- who supports this? >> it is derived from san francisco heritage and the san francisco preservation consortium. thank you.
>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is paul wermer. i am fortunate. i had many relatives and friends in europe who visit here. what brings them to san francisco, what they love about this city, is the human scale and in neighborhood character. it is precious, and it brings people here. that historic character is her important. it is very easy to destroy it. and it is very easy to, in the guise of making it easy to do a renovation, to do serious damage to the neighborhood character. for that reason, i am urging you to incorporate the recommendations of the historic preservation commission, as martinez stated, and the recommendations of the heritage
advisers. i should note that there is a lot of discussion about the cost impact. what i would like to observe is we have a lot of very expensive repairs needed, because people are not, for whatever reason, doing the basic maintenance that is necessary to keep the building in shape. lots of discussion about demolition by neglect. this is a very real issue. if we are serious about the cost impact on the lower-income communities, it might be very well worth while looking at how to integrate that with historic preservation, by making sure there is appropriate maintenance early in the process, before it becomes costly, burdensome, and
requires destruction of the historic character to make it affordable. thank you. supervisor wiener: let me call the final two cards -- harold wong and roland salvado. if you wish to speak and i have not called your name, please fill out a yellow card. >> my name is ima horton, and i am with speak, in the outer sunset. i am pleased with the implementation of proposition j. however, i am mostly concerned about two provisions which do not seem to be in the spirit of contemporary good preservation practice. i urge you to delete these provisions. the first issue is the proposal that local interpretations of the secretary of the interior should be introduced and
considered in project approvals. we have faired well with the standards of the secretary so far. it is applicable in the united states, and i do not see any obvious need for local interpretations. local flavor can be added in the design guidelines for individual historic districts and then be considered for each district, because of district adjustment is too different to be covered by a general interpretation. the second is the requirement of obtaining the majority of property owners to consent in writing. we have initiated a survey of the former oceanside neighborhood in the greater sense that. i have been notifying all the property owners and tenants. i received a mailing list from the department.
but with the tenants, a lot of the notification came back as undeliverable, and i do not even know how to reach these people. this is the official record from the assessor's office. it will be extremely costly to get these 50% written signatures. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. ms. jackson. >> aspin knowledge jackson -- espinola jackson, district 10. i have been too many meetings at city planning. i would like to say i was at all of them. thank you for the proposal you have. a lot of the concerns i have are in there. when you started off, you said
there had to be some common space, and it is no different than what your meeting was a few weeks ago. you were ready to go to the full board. i hope the body today passes on this legislation, because it is much needed, and i will not have to come to another meeting about my house. i think some of your legislation was dealing with my home, and the fact that a lot of us in san francisco -- i have been in bayview hunters point since 1948. i have been a homeowner is 1968. a lot of us who retired do not get $20,000 a year. i am glad you have looked out for our benefit. thank you very much for helping us seniors. supervisor wiener: thank you.
>> good afternoon. i was just telling my friend my own footprints when i was a baby are in the cement. i hope that are still there in the backyard. i will have to take a look some time. ♪ i was born in this city and my poor mother worked the city mines i hope you will give us a historic dime and i do believe i want to preserve forever more going down that old stony end i always wanted to go and i want to preserve forever and ever ever, ever, ever more i want to fix the stony end
and fix it up ♪ i see president peskin over there. ♪ welcome back let there be you let there be me let there be swimming in the ocean and historic sea but there be birds flying high with the dove let there be historic love the call the president flipper swimming in the bay won't you reserve it all for him and me flipper lives in a world full of laughter
slowing in the ocean ♪ supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. paulson. mr. wong? >> howard wong. i do not sing, but i did stand on the opera house stage, when i replace the wooden stage floor. that was interesting. i am here to support architectural heritage i's and e hpc's recommendations regarding articles 10 and 11. as an architect, i have worked on shopping centers, hotels, commercial and institutional buildings, as well as renovations and historic preservation. for many of these projects or all of these projects, there are many codes that apply universally to all projects -- building codes, zoning codes,
ada, fire and life safety, engineering, energy air and leed guidelines, grant funding constraints, and other things. for a very few projects which involve historic resources, which are perhaps 5% or 10% of all architectural projects, there are also guidelines that are widely recognized. there are secretary of the interior standards, local preservation codes. many of these guidelines and codes have also been refined, just as building codes have been refined for decades. historic resources codes have also evolved. the proposed amendments for articles 10 or 11 are inevitable hurdles which, if applied to other codes, would be illogical
-- for example, requiring written votes for zoning and area plans, including non- property-owners from exercising its rights granted them under state and federal laws, exempting affordable housing, and many other unreasonable issues like that. thank you very much. >> it is ironic that the blue- collar, or people from districts that have limited income, would be against historic preservation, because the amount of development that has been done primarily displaces those people. one of the main thrusts of the
legislation for historic preservation has been to preserve buildings and neighborhoods that house people who are primarily blue-collar, who are primarily unable to come to meetings like this. if you are concerned that everybody here might be white and rich, that is because the people who otherwise might be here to fight for historic preservation are probably working right now. there are probably janitors. they are probably simply unable to fight for something that benefits them. when a developer comes in and puts in luxury condominiums, those are usually one bedroom homes. they are usually very -- usually very expensive, not very affordable. that is in the record. some of the buildings that have recently been displaced by development and were not able to
be preserved by historic preservation were luxury homes. the other point i wanted to make is that the change in the articles to disenfranchise voters and any citizen who is not a home owner to participate in the designation of historic resources is not going to fly for any politician. it is not going to fly for anybody who realizes that everybody is a member of this community and cannot be disenfranchised. supervisor wiener: i know you got here sort of like, but the legislation does require that tenants be part of the survey as well, tenants and owners. >> i was talking about 100 4.1. is that what you are saying has changed since yesterday? supervisor wiener: in terms of the survey or voting to create
the historic district, tenants have always been there. at the hpc, i accepted that recommendation, and we are adding a clarifying line to make that even clearer. >> that is good to hear. thank you. supervisor wiener: ms. platte. and if there are other speakers, please line up before we close public comment. >> i have sat on the landmarks preservation advisory board under four mayors. i participated in writing the initial articles 10 and 11. i have been a historic preservation commissioner since then. i am unalterably opposed to this legislation. i support the heritage and other preservation community members' legislation. i am disappointed that what i thought had been agreed to in terms of compromise does not seem to exist.
i am also concerned, i think, because i do receive your calendar in the mail, that last week's calendar was talking about how we had substitute legislation all the time, going back to the department in planning commission review. i called the department last week to find out what was good to be on the calendar this week, and they did not know about it. i have looked at the historic preservation officer's letter. he is approving the legislation that he saw on late march. march 30 and march 22. i am shocked that this draft is so unprofessional vis-a-vis historic preservation law. i encourage you all to take the
time to read it fully. i would ask you to read the version of against the supervisors, so you understand what is going on. you cannot absorb legislation like this, with people talking for 10 minutes over an hour or two. you really have to think about it. this is going to affect the lives. hopefully not for the next 40 years, but it may. i have also been really concerned that the supervisor does not show up except once, so i do not know who once these amendments, or why. or what projects that are attempting to solve. a lot of us would like to know that. i think i got a bitter sense today, with some of the downtown testimony that took place. i think that is a conversation we all need to have in a different place. thank you.
>> i have the dubious distinction of being the primary author behind proposition j, which was sponsored by the other 10 members of the board of supervisors, and passed with a majority vote of the people of san francisco in 2008, aimed at increasing historic preservation protections in the city and county of san francisco. let me respectfully put this in a little bit of context, because i think there is a lot of misunderstanding. in the last 45 years, almost one-third of san francisco's history, 1% of the built environment of san francisco, 11 small historic districts and approximately 275 individual landmarks -- to hear some of the
stuff we see and hear and some of the testimony, you would think this will apply to 95% of san francisco. it applies to 1% of san francisco. i hope we preserve another 1%. there have been 25 hearings. there have been missteps. in those 25 hearings, there have been an lot of compromises. i salute supervisor winner for bringing some of those about. this will take me more than 2 minutes, because it has taken many minute -- many years. this is the first time that this has gotten to the ultimate policy body, the board of supervisors. the outstanding issues you've heard about today, which are taken 3.5 years to get here, do not need to be resolved in the next 10 minutes. i think all of you have the opportunity to become somewhat expert on the issues that were
being talked about, and some of them are being the subject of disparate treatment. if you want to have the majority vote on zoning and not just for historic districts, and that is the public policy, do it across the board. but why do it for 1% and not the other 99%? if the planning commission gets to comment on the stuff the historic preservation commission does, then why don't we let the historic commission comment on the east of the planning commission does? chairperson mar: try to wrap up, if you can, relatively briefly. >> with regard to the exemption provisions, we have balanced the need for the development of affordable housing in san francisco with historic uses, neighborhood concerns, downtown
concerns. this exemption is written in a way that is for a single unit. read the legislation. i have for each of you. alternative language, easy and reasonable language. as it comes to the nominations of landmarks and historic district, members of the public may petition the government. this is an issue of fundamental fairness and access to the body politic and its governing bodies, by and through the planning department. what kind of fairness is that? i am delighted that, supervisor wiener, u.s.-made the compromises you have made. i am grateful the preservation advocacy community have made the compromises they have made. but respectfully, i think there
is still room for compromise. i think reasonable minds can still agree. i think san francisco architectural heritage has repeatedly brought up issues in a mature and sophisticated way. i respectfully ask that they not fall on deaf ears. you will see on this chart that is two pages, that includes a total of eight items out of hundreds of pages of legislation, that you all in the door getting close. i commend you on getting this far. it is your first hearing at the board of supervisors. it has been to 25 hearings at the historic preservation commission, a couple of hearings that the planning commission -- the four hearings, thank you. you all have the opportunity to have a couple of hearings at this committee to resolve these issues. i thank you, mr. chairman, for the extra time, and will hand you each the chart and the
proposed amendments, which i think are proposed and simple, and i hope to get your attention. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am here to speak in support of supervisor weiner's amen -- wiener's amendments. it is about community participation, putting community preservation in historic preservation. the formal survey of property owners and occupancy is actually a very good amendment to insert into the creation of a historic district to ensure there is community by and -- buy-in. the second is about affordable housing, making sure they exempt low-income residents that cannot afford the upkeep in historic
districts, making sure that are not forced to move out because the cannot afford the increased cost of living. this has been a tremendous and arduous public participation process, 25 hearings alone. crafting the legislation took a tremendous amount of effort. thank you for introducing these much-needed changes, which would bring articles 10 and 11 into compliance, and creating safeguards for low-income communities. supervisor wiener: thank you. is there any additional public comment? of the chairman will close public comment? chairperson mar: yes. supervisor wiener: i want to thank everyone for coming out today and for those on all sides, over time. this is been a very lengthy process with enormous
opportunity for public input. i want to suggest a few things. first, in terms of negotiation, i can say, without a doubt, this is the most-negotiated peace of legislation i have ever sponsored. just about every amendment that i have proposed of any significance has been significantly negotiated. i think it is -- sometimes, we see it that if you can get away with it, it is an effective technique to allow the negotiations to proceed so you meet somewhere in the meadow, and then you come in at a hearing and said, "let us negotiate the rest of it away." which is what we have heard some. this does not apply to her, because she has negotiated from good faith in the beginning. but we have heard from some people who have not necessarily been involved at the planning
commission level. with all due respect, they are all legitimate points of view, and i respect them, but this has gone through enormous process and debate and dialogue and discussion. planning staff have put in inordinate work. i think these are ready to move forward. a couple of things i want to address in particular -- miss horton raised the issue of tenant mail being returned, not being able to do that outreach. the reason why this is not binding, among others -- we understand there are times when it will be hard to do the outreach. that is why we made a goal of getting 50% and is being simply information for the board of supervisors. it does not prevent the board from legislating a historic district. we put tenants in at the request of the historic preservation
commission. i acceded to that request. with that said, tenants at times will be more challenging to engage in this than property owners. maybe that will not always be the case. it may be at times. that is information the board will take into account, and that is why it is not binding. i also want to disagree with something mr. peskin stated, that this is limiting the right of a citizen to petition his or her government to create a historic district. anyone can show upper -- show up at many of numerous forms -- forums and request that the district be organized. anybody can do that at any time. what will not happen, which had been proposed by the hpc, that
any individual could walk in and forced a hearing on any district. i want to create a historic district of everything north of market and east of van ness. i am triggering a nomination. that is what would happen. anyone can request an hpc. these are very common sense and modest changes. i think we have before us is a very good accommodation that takes into account a lot of different things, which is why the planning commission was so supportive, and why the hpc was supportive of some of the items and there was a split vote on other items. i would first like to move the amendments, which are distributed, making crystal clear that it is occupancy and
owners. i would move to forward items 5 and 6 to the full board with a recommendation. chairperson mar: the supervisor olabugue have any closing remarks? csupervisor olague: i know you did a lot of work on the equity issue. i would like to know why you were so compelled, offering recommendations, regarding this ordinance. >> what led us to get involved, i think, was -- clearly, the intent of proposition j was to move from -- only 1% of the city is historic districts now. clearly, the voter intent was to get more. the concern